The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Google · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B trade strengths across price, capabilities, and technical limits. The better choice depends on the workload.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen2.5-Omni-7B wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemini 3.5 Transcribe

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

Choose Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe
Google
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$2.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$12.00 / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

1 reported for Gemini 3.5 Transcribe · 45 for Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

1 shared

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is better at 1 benchmark (FLEURS).

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Gemini 3.5 Transcribe and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe was released on 2026-08-26, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B was released on 2025-03-27.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe is 17 months newer than Qwen2.5-Omni-7B.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe

Aug 26, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.4yr newer
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Mar 27, 2025

1.4 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.5 Transcribe and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.5 Transcribe vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B.

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Transcribe or Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 3.5 Transcribe is made by Google and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 3.5 Transcribe compare to Qwen2.5-Omni-7B in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe scores FLEURS: 95.0%. Qwen2.5-Omni-7B scores FLEURS: 95.9%, DocVQA: 95.2%, VocalSound: 93.9%, GSM8k: 88.7%, GiantSteps Tempo: 88.0%.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.5 Transcribe and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Key differences include licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.5 Transcribe and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Gemini 3.5 Transcribe is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons